Creationism vs. Evolution: "...after its own kind"

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

The Albino part was me, so I could be wrong. In the introduction to The Ancestor's Tale, which I just happen to be reading, Dawkins uses blind fish as an example of how it is not directional and how the assumpotion that it is linear suggests that idea that we are the culmination of evolution, which is incorrect and can lead to fuzzy thinking (and he then gives some rather surprising examples of scientists in the field that have doen this).

I have that book. You've inspired me to tackle it finally.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I've never seen anything like this. Two completely unrelated discussions going on in tandem in a single thread. It's like two choirs singing at once out of harmony.

Try the threaded mode. Much easier to follow that way.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Sure, but either something literally occurred or it did not.

But the point of scripture is NOT, NEVER WAs and NEVER will be to prove scientific theories, to act as a literal history, but rather to lead man to exaltation and salvation by coming to know God, and to be like God in character.

With that perspective, we do not need to know the literal truth of very many facts.

We need to believe whether Christ is who he purports to be and whether Christ resurrected. Whether Joseph Smith receive authority or not.

Much more than that is superfluous for me, or gravy. I don't expect much more literalness beyond that. The rest are traditions to lead me to Christ.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

If you don't allow, even philosophically, for the possibility of a negative response, then you aren't being intellectually honest.

There is nothing intellectual about it at all. We're speaking of spiritual things. It's completely different.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Another dodge.

Suppose it was something less earth-shaking. Such as ..... hmm .... someone saying that they sincerely believe that God does not sanction genocide, OT stories notwithstanding. How about that? Or what if someone says that they believe the genesis account to be figurative and not literal?

Someone is welcome to disbelieve the scriptures all they want, or to claim any new and/or unusual interpretation. I'm not going to force someone to believe anything.

But they simply can't claim that God told them so. That I will challenge.

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Says who? How do you know this?

I think you can see where I'm going with this: You take this position because you've interpreted some type of scripture, some words of a prophet, some feeling you had, etc. in order to come up with this position. The fact that you intepreted what you heard, read, or felt means that you just decided what was true based on how you perceived the Spirit. In other words, the fact that you even argue this invalidates your position. Your position is illogical on its face.

It's not because of "some feeling I had." It's a very plain fact about how the church (and thus, God) handles its doctrine. I don't have time right now (holiday coming and all) but I'll find some references for you later .... that is, assuming Arch doesn't feel impelled to call me the "most hateful poster ever" for doing so.

Originally Posted by Archaea

IOW, Tex is too proud to admit he might be wrong.

Chalk this up to another of those wondrous Cougarguard moments where the plainest of doctrines can be so easily obfuscated. I continue to be amazed to discover what simple ideas can be made so complicated here.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Someone is welcome to disbelieve the scriptures all they want, or to claim any new and/or unusual interpretation. I'm not going to force someone to believe anything.

But they simply can't claim that God told them so. That I will challenge.

You will challenge a person's personal interpretation of scripture made for himself?

Who made you prophet?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

There is nothing intellectual about it at all. We're speaking of spiritual things. It's completely different.

Nonsense. Don't try to paint this as an intellectual vs. spiritual issue. It is nothing of the sort. But if you prefer simplicity, let's just call it a dishonest approach.

Originally Posted by Tex

Someone is welcome to disbelieve the scriptures all they want, or to claim any new and/or unusual interpretation. I'm not going to force someone to believe anything.

But they simply can't claim that God told them so. That I will challenge.

It appears that if someone told you that they had a spiritual confirmation that God condones genocide, you would be fine with that, since it is in harmony with a simplistic, literal reading of OT scripture. But if someone claims a spiritual confirmation of anything contrary to a black and white reading, they are way out of line? That's remarkable. Especially in this case since I fail to see how a belief in genocide has anything to do with fundamental gospel principles.

So if I were to tell you that I have a personal belief (confirmed by the spirit) that the genesis account of the creation is not literally true, you would claim that I am way out of line?

Originally Posted by Tex

Chalk this up to another of those wondrous Cougarguard moments where the plainest of doctrines can be so easily obfuscated. I continue to be amazed to discover what simple ideas can be made so complicated here.

Irony alert.

Honestly, your claim that we have no right to validate the truthfulness of various doctrines, beliefs, or details associated with stories that are thousands of years old is startling. And I think it is contrary to everything we have been taught.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Tex

It's not because of "some feeling I had." It's a very plain fact about how the church (and thus, God) handles its doctrine. I don't have time right now (holiday coming and all) but I'll find some references for you later .... that is, assuming Arch doesn't feel impelled to call me the "most hateful poster ever" for doing so.

Did you read what I posted? I'll post it again:

You take this position because you've interpreted some type of scripture, some words of a prophet, some feeling you had, etc. in order to come up with this position. The fact that you intepreted what you heard, read, or felt means that you just decided what was true based on how you perceived the Spirit. In other words, the fact that you even argue this invalidates your position. Your position is illogical on its face.

Do you see that I didn't just use the phrase "some feeling you had" but that I also used the phrases "some type of scripture" and "some words of a prophet"? You don't like it when people twist your words - I would appreciate it if you would please not twist mine (by only lighting upon one phrase in a series).

As far as finding a reference goes: go ahead and find a reference. Find 10,000 references. The POINT is that you read and interpret those references in order to determine what you think is true based on how you perceived the Spirit. But reading and interpreting those references in order to come to your conclusion is the very act which you say people can't do. Do you not see that the very act of finding references to support your position invalidates your position?

You're big on logical fallacies right? Look up petitio principii or circulus in probando. You are engaging in them on a massive scale here. Dude, I don't have anything against you and I certainly don't read CB enough to carry a bias from that board over to here. That being said, if you can't recognize that the premise of your argument defeats itself then there simply isn't much else for me to discuss with you as it relates to this.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nonsense. Don't try to paint this as an intellectual vs. spiritual issue. It is nothing of the sort. But if you prefer simplicity, let's just call it a dishonest approach.

That simply makes no sense. I don't believe God will ever tell someone who meets Moroni's requirements that the Book of Mormon is not true. Ever.

There's nothing dishonest, intellectual or otherwise, about that.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

It appears that if someone told you that they had a spiritual confirmation that God condones genocide, you would be fine with that, since it is in harmony with a simplistic, literal reading of OT scripture. But if someone claims a spiritual confirmation of anything contrary to a black and white reading, they are way out of line? That's remarkable. Especially in this case since I fail to see how a belief in genocide has anything to do with fundamental gospel principles.

So if I were to tell you that I have a personal belief (confirmed by the spirit) that the genesis account of the creation is not literally true, you would claim that I am way out of line?

I'm not sure I would jump on that bandwagon either. Again, it does not fall under your purview to make this determination, one way or the other. More below.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Irony alert.

Honestly, your claim that we have no right to validate the truthfulness of various doctrines, beliefs, or details associated with stories that are thousands of years old is startling. And I think it is contrary to everything we have been taught.

I don't deny a "right to validate." If a prophet of the Lord tells you something is true, by all means, validate away.

But you don't get the right, until you are a prophet yourself, to uncover and reveal truths not yet revealed or doctrines not yet expounded upon, or to change anything that has been. All of us are limited to the canon of scripture and the words of those who are in authority, as it touches the interpretation of doctrine.

If there is an open doctrinal question to which there is no declared answer, I don't rely solely on the spirit to answer it. I look to the men God has ordained to provide it, and then seek confirmation of their words. This is not a complicated process.

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Did you read what I posted? I'll post it again:

Do you see that I didn't just use the phrase "some feeling you had" but that I also used the phrases "some type of scripture" and "some words of a prophet"? You don't like it when people twist your words - I would appreciate it if you would please not twist mine (by only lighting upon one phrase in a series).

As far as finding a reference goes: go ahead and find a reference. Find 10,000 references. The POINT is that you read and interpret those references in order to determine what you think is true based on how you perceived the Spirit. But reading and interpreting those references in order to come to your conclusion is the very act which you say people can't do. Do you not see that the very act of finding references to support your position invalidates your position?

You're big on logical fallacies right? Look up petitio principii or circulus in probando. You are engaging in them on a massive scale here. Dude, I don't have anything against you and I certainly don't read CB enough to carry a bias from that board over to here. That being said, if you can't recognize that the premise of your argument defeats itself then there simply isn't much else for me to discuss with you as it relates to this.

First off, Meanie, calm down. My apologies if I misunderstood your point. I was not deliberately trying to distort anyone's words.

I certainly am not begging the question. It is apparent you don't understand my argument. I am not denying anyone the right to interpret anything as they please (see above). I am questioning their right to do it in the name of God.

To that end, I am NOT engaging in the very act that I criticize. I am not claiming any unique divine insight into any scripture or doctrine.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

That simply makes no sense. I don't believe God will ever tell someone who meets Moroni's requirements that the Book of Mormon is not true. Ever.

There's nothing dishonest, intellectual or otherwise, about that.

That's fine. I respect that belief. But in the next verse Moroni stated that by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truthfulness of all things. It clearly implies that the spirit can be our guide in the search for truth. If you decide, a priori, that certain things are true and you discount any possibility for non-truth, you are not being an honest seeker of truth.

An LDS article of faith states that we believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Here you have an article of faith stating that some parts of the bible are not true. And we have Moroni exhorting us to use the spirit as a guide to discern all truth. And yet you deny the possibility that the spirit would give anything but a positive answer when applied to any point of scripture, regardless of how tangential it is to basic gospel principles.

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't deny a "right to validate." If a prophet of the Lord tells you something is true, by all means, validate away.

But if that validation comes up negative on a particular point, then what? And I know you hate this example, but it illustrates the point quite well: suppose a church member in Brigham Young's day prayed about the Adam-God doctrine that BY preached over and over and got a personal witness that it wasn't true. Would that have been out of line, given the documented fact that SWK later declared it to be a false doctine? Was it a truth that later became an untruth?

Originally Posted by Tex

But you don't get the right, until you are a prophet yourself, to uncover and reveal truths not yet revealed or doctrines not yet expounded upon. All of us are limited to the canon of scripture and the words of those who are in authority, as it touches the interpretation of doctrine.

But earlier in this thread you stated that there are several items in the scripture that you believe are not literally true, the creation account in genesis being one. What led you to believe that these items are not true? What gave you the "right" in these cases to reach your own opinion, while you deny others the same right in other cases? This is a fundamental and simple question that you have been dodging for two days. Are you going to argue that you have purposefully avoided any sort of spiritual pondering in these cases just in case you might get an answer that confirms what you have decided intellectually?

Originally Posted by Tex

If there is an open doctrinal question to which there is no declared answer, I don't rely solely on the spirit to answer it. I look to the men God has ordained to provide it, and then seek confirmation of their words. This is not a complicated process.

Is there an official statement of church doctrine regarding OT-genocide? Please provide me a link.

Originally Posted by Tex

I certainly am not begging the question. It is apparent you don't understand my argument. I am not denying anyone the right to interpret anything as they please (see above). I am questioning their right to do it in the name of God.

To that end, I am NOT engaging in the very act that I criticize. I am not claiming any unique divine insight into any scripture or doctrine.

Classic double-speak. What you are essentially saying is, "You are free to seek a spiritual validation of the truthfulness of various accounts in the scriptures. As long as you accept, a priori, that the only possible answer is a positive answer. Negative answers are not allowed under any circumstances." Intellectual honesty, indeed.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

That's fine. I respect that belief. But in the next verse Moroni stated that by the power of the Holy Ghost we may know the truthfulness of all things. It clearly implies that the spirit can be our guide in the search for truth. If you decide, a priori, that certain things are true and you discount any possibility for non-truth, you are not being an honest seeker of truth.

An LDS article of faith states that we believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Here you have an article of faith stating that some parts of the bible are not true. And we have Moroni exhorting us to use the spirit as a guide to discern all truth. And yet you deny the possibility that the spirit would give anything but a positive answer when applied to any point of scripture, regardless of how tangential it is to basic gospel principles.

As to the 8th Article of Faith, I believe it should be up to the prophet to declare what is translated correctly (as touching points of doctrine) and what isn't.

What happens, Lebowski, when two members lean over to chat with each other in EQ about some passage in scripture, and to one God has said that scripture is true, and to the other God has said it is false? Can it be both?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

But if that validation comes up negative on a particular point, then what? And I know you hate this example, but it illustrates the point quite well: suppose a church member in Brigham Young's day prayed about the Adam-God doctrine that BY preached over and over and got a personal witness that it wasn't true. Would that have been out of line, given the documented fact that SWK later declared it to be a false doctine? Was it a truth that later became an untruth?

Adam-God is quickly becoming the LDS equivalent of citing Adolf Hitler.

It's interesting ... it's almost as if you require an escape hatch, just in case the prophet leads you astray. Tell me, is there an example in your lifetime that you can give me of this quandary presenting itself to you?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

But earlier in this thread you stated that there are several items in the scripture that you believe are not literally true, the creation account in genesis being one. What led you to believe that these items are not true? What gave you the "right" in these cases to reach your own opinion, while you deny others the same right in other cases? This is a fundamental and simple question that you have been dodging for two days. Are you going to argue that you have purposefully avoided any sort of spiritual pondering in these cases just in case you might get an answer that confirms what you have decided intellectually?

Is there an official statement of church doctrine regarding OT-genocide? Please provide me a link.

I don't recall making any definitive statement about the figurative or literal nature of the creation story. But as to a general principle: when it comes to doctrine, I follow the statements and council of the brethren. When it comes to personal application, I follow the promptings of the Spirit.

When it comes to things on which there is no official pronouncement (say, the Amalekite slaughtering), I approach the scriptures with the assumption that they are true as written, but willing to acknowledge that interpretation may change as our leaders give us further light.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Classic double-speak. What you are essentially saying is, "You are free to seek a spiritual validation of the truthfulness of various accounts in the scriptures. As long as you accept, a priori, that the only possible answer is a positive answer. Negative answers are not allowed under any circumstances." Intellectual honesty, indeed.

When Jesus came to the earth, he had one mission to accomplish and we knew he would do it. We are told by no less a figure than James Talmadge that it was possible for him to sin, that he was capable of failure. But he didn't and he wouldn't. God knew it, the prophets for millennia preceding knew it, and the salvation of worlds hung in the balance.

If you want to live in a fantasy world where Jesus might've sinned or that God might declare the Book of Mormon untrue to an honest seeker, be my guest. But it is a not a world grounded in reality.